4 ms·

Well, I'm in Alberta, Canada, and I guarantee 95% of voters here would choose increasing oil production vs. any sort of climate action. We just had a pretty ba

Well, I'm in Alberta, Canada, and I guarantee 95% of voters here would choose increasing oil production vs. any sort of climate action. We just had a pretty bad recession, our unemployment is still above typical levels, and we just had an unseasonably cold summer after a pretty cold winter. It's not an issue of being brainwashed, people really do prefer having jobs and homes over climate targets to fix a problem that isn't readily apparent.

rconti 7y ago
It's not just jobs and homes (poorer people). It's everyone. Everyone is chasing the jonses and is convinced they don't have enough. I'd like a fifth car. And a bigger house. And more vacations. I'm not saying I, personally, favor those things over what it will cost to limit climate change. But I think society as a whole doesn't have the stomach for it, and it's not just those living on the margins.
transreal 7y ago
This is why I really like Andrew Yang for 2020. He wants to give everyone in the US $1000/month so people don't constantly have "the economic boot on their neck". You can't worry about climate change when you are worried about paying bills and feeding your kids.
- AJ007 7y ago
  Increasing consumer wealth is precisely why we have climate change. One would need to also implement large taxes/bans on co2 and other non-renewables and pollutants. At best this would be a net-zero situation. More likely it would reduce the lower to middle class’s wealth in real terms. Less airline flights, leisure cruises, manufactured goods, imported foods, not more.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Why not just go after the much smaller number of boot-wearers?
- caconym_ 7y ago
  Basic income also means citizens can't be held as economic hostages by obsolete "too big to fail" industry players who've achieved significant regulatory capture. The labor market can't efficiently shift supply around when workers are trapped in crushing poverty and stressed to the breaking point.
  - 14 7y ago
    When I think about basic income I see everyone suddenly being able to afford a lot more which is good and I like that. But what I do worry is that as soon as the stores realize people have more cash to spend they start to increase the prices to match that. So how do we prevent that if we implement a basic income? I think what would be better then a basic income is some sort of basic housing, health and food rights. I don't want 1000$ a month. I want to know every month I will have enough funds to feed my kids and house them and treat them when they are not well. I think this can be achieved by a number of means. I am Canadian so we have the health care mostly figured out though I would make changes to the cost of prescriptions for low income families. I have struggled at times to afford antibiotics for my kids and I make a lot more then minimum wage. The housing could be tackled as well. We have a lot of rules which I feel are restrictive for no reason in this day and age. For example the minimum square footage I can build a place for a person to live here is 700 square feet. My dad built a 2 level tiny home that was 100 square feet I would die to own. He had to put it on a trailer to avoid the 700 square foot rule. Why? My property could fit 20 tiny homes and have room left over to play. But the city would never allow it so I truly do think housing shortage is a political issue not a logistics issue. As for food, I would like to basically see a government funded/run food kitchen with basic foods offered to low income families where they can access nutritious food. I am thank full my kids school has a breakfast program, also thankful I do not need it, but come Christmas break, summer break, any break, my heart hurts a little knowing there are several kids that 100% rely on that program for getting food. One kid was caught stealing food and the teacher asked why are you trying to hide it you can eat as much as you like, his reply was his little brother at home who was too young to be in school was hungry so he was trying to take him something to eat. That is soul crushing to me. We live in such a damn rich county no kid should be left to go hungry at home. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how it would all be paid for but I do know something needs to change.
- simonh 7y ago
  Wow. That’s not going to cause massive, crippling hyper inflation at all, is it.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    If people being able to feed themselves would cause unsustainable inflation, then we have bigger problems.
  - luckydata 7y ago
    That's such a myopic, small way to see the world. Human dignity is the priority, if our economy doesn't work for that then we change the economy, we don't give up on dignity.
    - simonh 7y ago
      I agree completely. Nobody should go hungry, without basic health care or without a roof over their heads in a modern advanced economy. But $1,000 a month for everybody is insane. It would require a massive tax on corporations and the wealthy, and it’s just an objective fact that raising taxes that way does not significantly increase tax income. It just doesn’t. It’s been tried over and over in many countries and it never works. I live in the UK. We have universal health care, a robust social care model, my kids are getting a decent free education and we have a decent benefits system. I’m proud of all of those and don’t resent a single penny I pay in taxes towards it. But plonking big wadges of cash on everybody, funded by hammering anybody that looks even moderately successful, is a recipe for economic mayhem.
  - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
    Inflation comes from an increase in the money supply. If we printed the money for it, it would cause inflation, but he plans to tax it. But even if we printed it, it would by no stretch of the imagination cause hyperinflation, just inflation. The M2 money supply -- still an incomplete measure, as there are lots of kinds of money -- in the US is 14 trillion and change, per Investopedia[1]. 12K per year * 350M people in the US = 4.2 trillion more dollars a year. Hyperinflation happens when a regime does something like double the money supply every week. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp
ramphastidae 7y ago
> people really do prefer having jobs and homes over climate targets to fix a problem that isn't readily apparent That's a false equivalency. Jobs and homes exist in other places than Alberta and in other industries than oil extraction. Sure it will be painful to change for these Albertans but to argue that they have no choice but to vote for increasing oil production is just plain wrong.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Nobody said they have no choice - but they definitely won't vote to decrease oil production and if you think they voluntarily will you have your head in the sand
yifanl 7y ago
And that's the issue isn't it? It's not readily apparent and the instant it is, we're essentially beyond hope of a fix. I remember an argument I got into a while back, essentially it went "They've been saying we'll be out of oil in 10 years for 30 years." "They'll eventually be right, unless you think we have infinite oil." "We can worry about it when it happens then." Being proactive is hard, but surely it'd still be less effort than being reactive here?

rconti 7y ago

It's not just jobs and homes (poorer people). It's everyone. Everyone is chasing the jonses and is convinced they don't have enough. I'd like a fifth car. And a bigger house. And more vacations. I'm not saying I, personally, favor those things over what it will cost to limit climate change. But I think society as a whole doesn't have the stomach for it, and it's not just those living on the margins.

transreal 7y ago

This is why I really like Andrew Yang for 2020. He wants to give everyone in the US $1000/month so people don't constantly have "the economic boot on their neck". You can't worry about climate change when you are worried about paying bills and feeding your kids.

AJ007 7y ago
Increasing consumer wealth is precisely why we have climate change. One would need to also implement large taxes/bans on co2 and other non-renewables and pollutants. At best this would be a net-zero situation. More likely it would reduce the lower to middle class’s wealth in real terms. Less airline flights, leisure cruises, manufactured goods, imported foods, not more.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Why not just go after the much smaller number of boot-wearers?
caconym_ 7y ago
Basic income also means citizens can't be held as economic hostages by obsolete "too big to fail" industry players who've achieved significant regulatory capture. The labor market can't efficiently shift supply around when workers are trapped in crushing poverty and stressed to the breaking point.
- 14 7y ago
  When I think about basic income I see everyone suddenly being able to afford a lot more which is good and I like that. But what I do worry is that as soon as the stores realize people have more cash to spend they start to increase the prices to match that. So how do we prevent that if we implement a basic income? I think what would be better then a basic income is some sort of basic housing, health and food rights. I don't want 1000$ a month. I want to know every month I will have enough funds to feed my kids and house them and treat them when they are not well. I think this can be achieved by a number of means. I am Canadian so we have the health care mostly figured out though I would make changes to the cost of prescriptions for low income families. I have struggled at times to afford antibiotics for my kids and I make a lot more then minimum wage. The housing could be tackled as well. We have a lot of rules which I feel are restrictive for no reason in this day and age. For example the minimum square footage I can build a place for a person to live here is 700 square feet. My dad built a 2 level tiny home that was 100 square feet I would die to own. He had to put it on a trailer to avoid the 700 square foot rule. Why? My property could fit 20 tiny homes and have room left over to play. But the city would never allow it so I truly do think housing shortage is a political issue not a logistics issue. As for food, I would like to basically see a government funded/run food kitchen with basic foods offered to low income families where they can access nutritious food. I am thank full my kids school has a breakfast program, also thankful I do not need it, but come Christmas break, summer break, any break, my heart hurts a little knowing there are several kids that 100% rely on that program for getting food. One kid was caught stealing food and the teacher asked why are you trying to hide it you can eat as much as you like, his reply was his little brother at home who was too young to be in school was hungry so he was trying to take him something to eat. That is soul crushing to me. We live in such a damn rich county no kid should be left to go hungry at home. I don't have all the answers. I don't know how it would all be paid for but I do know something needs to change.
simonh 7y ago
Wow. That’s not going to cause massive, crippling hyper inflation at all, is it.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  If people being able to feed themselves would cause unsustainable inflation, then we have bigger problems.
- luckydata 7y ago
  That's such a myopic, small way to see the world. Human dignity is the priority, if our economy doesn't work for that then we change the economy, we don't give up on dignity.
  - simonh 7y ago
    I agree completely. Nobody should go hungry, without basic health care or without a roof over their heads in a modern advanced economy. But $1,000 a month for everybody is insane. It would require a massive tax on corporations and the wealthy, and it’s just an objective fact that raising taxes that way does not significantly increase tax income. It just doesn’t. It’s been tried over and over in many countries and it never works. I live in the UK. We have universal health care, a robust social care model, my kids are getting a decent free education and we have a decent benefits system. I’m proud of all of those and don’t resent a single penny I pay in taxes towards it. But plonking big wadges of cash on everybody, funded by hammering anybody that looks even moderately successful, is a recipe for economic mayhem.
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago
  Inflation comes from an increase in the money supply. If we printed the money for it, it would cause inflation, but he plans to tax it. But even if we printed it, it would by no stretch of the imagination cause hyperinflation, just inflation. The M2 money supply -- still an incomplete measure, as there are lots of kinds of money -- in the US is 14 trillion and change, per Investopedia[1]. 12K per year * 350M people in the US = 4.2 trillion more dollars a year. Hyperinflation happens when a regime does something like double the money supply every week. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp

ramphastidae 7y ago

> people really do prefer having jobs and homes over climate targets to fix a problem that isn't readily apparent That's a false equivalency. Jobs and homes exist in other places than Alberta and in other industries than oil extraction. Sure it will be painful to change for these Albertans but to argue that they have no choice but to vote for increasing oil production is just plain wrong.

MiroF 7y ago
Nobody said they have no choice - but they definitely won't vote to decrease oil production and if you think they voluntarily will you have your head in the sand

yifanl 7y ago

And that's the issue isn't it? It's not readily apparent and the instant it is, we're essentially beyond hope of a fix. I remember an argument I got into a while back, essentially it went "They've been saying we'll be out of oil in 10 years for 30 years." "They'll eventually be right, unless you think we have infinite oil." "We can worry about it when it happens then." Being proactive is hard, but surely it'd still be less effort than being reactive here?